WALTHAM FOREST: Housing company misses decent homes target (From East London and West Essex Guardian Series)

WALTHAM FOREST: Housing company misses decent homes target

4:56pm Tuesday 21st October 2008

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(1)

THE council is demanding to know why Ascham Homes has failed to reach its decent homes target.

Ascham Homes had a provisional target to make 233 homes up to a basic standard of decency from April to June this year, but completed only 149.

Despite the shortfall, £6.5million of the £7.1million budget for the first quarter was spent.

In a report prepared by housing cabinet member Marie Pye, it states that Ascham Homes told the council that the reason for the shortfall is because it did not “fully specify the programme in May 2008 and start dates and completion dates have now been revised for all schemes.”

The report recommends that the council requests from Ascham Homes provide more detail on why the target was not met, and what action will be taken to ensure that an additional 84 homes are completed in the second quarter.

Ascham Homes, which was created specifically to carry out the “decent homes” work, has a Government target to bring all council-owned homes up to standard by 2010.

By the end of the first quarter, more than half of the borough’s social housing (5,431) is still classed as “non-decent”.

The report also highlights the council’s “concern” and “disappointment” about the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT), which ruled that Ascham Homes misled leaseholders, who had bought their property, about the cost they would have to meet for the works carried out.

Ascham Homes is appealing against the decision made at the tribunal, which the report says is likely to cause “some delay” to decent homes work while the issue it resolved.

The report recommends to the cabinet that Ascham Homes puts in place detailed plans of how to address the problems caused by the decision; and keeps the leaseholders, tenants and council officers and lawyers informed.

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(1)